gender differences in self-compassion: examining the role ...€¦ · between self-compassion and...

17
ORIGINAL PAPER Gender Differences in Self-Compassion: Examining the Role of Gender Role Orientation Lisa M. Yarnell 1 & Kristin D. Neff 2 & Oliver A. Davidson 2 & Michael Mullarkey 2 # Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018 Abstract Meta-analytic research suggests that women have slightly lower levels of self-compassion than men, but the contri- bution of gender role orientation has not been carefully explored. The current study examines the joint associations of self-identified gender and gender role orientation with self-compassion in undergraduate (N = 504) and community adult (N = 968) samples, using two measures of gender role orientation. The Bem Sex Role Inventory (BSRI) and the Personal Attributes Questionnaire (PAQ) were used to classify each participant into a single gender role orien- tation category based on relative scores on the masculinity and femininity subscales, with respect to the sample, and average scores for each continuous subscale were also retained. The categorical gender role orientation classifications were used in mean comparisons of self-compassion across groups, and the average masculinity and femininity subscale scores were used in regression modeling. Results replicated the small effect size for gender differences in self-compassion for both samples, with self-identified men having significantly higher levels of self-compassion than self-identified women. Results also consistently showed that the impact of self-identified gender on self- compassion was smaller than the impact of masculine gender role orientation, suggesting that socialization plays a strong role, and that those high in both femininity and masculinity tended to have the highest levels of self- compassion. Effect sizes and specific findings differed by gender, sample, and gender role orientation measure. Therefore, a nuanced understanding of differences in self-compassion based on gender and gender role orientation is needed. Keywords Self-compassion . Gender differences . Gender role orientation . Self-compassion training Given the robust benefits of self-compassion suggested in the empirical literature, it is important to clarify findings from previous studies suggesting that men have higher levels of self-compassion than women in North America by considering the role that gender role orientation might play in these differences. Self-compassion refers to how we relate to ourselves in instances of perceived failure, inadequacy, or personal suffering. As defined by Neff (2003b), self-compassion entails three main elements, each of which has a positive and negative pole that rep- resents compassionate versus uncompassionate behavior: self-kindness versus self-judgment, a sense of common humanity versus isolation, and mindfulness versus over- identification. Self-kindness entails being understanding, warm, and supportive toward oneself. Rather than harshly judging oneself for personal inadequacies, the self is of- fered kindness and unconditional acceptance. It also in- volves actively soothing and comforting oneself in times of suffering. Common humanity involves recognizing our shared human experience, acknowledging that all humans are imperfect and make mistakes, that all people face challenges in their lives. Rather than feeling isolated by ones imperfectionfeeling as if BI^ am the only one who is strugglingone takes a broader and more connected Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-018-1066-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. * Lisa M. Yarnell [email protected] 1 American Institutes for Research, 1000 Thomas Jefferson St., NW, Washington, DC 20007-3835, USA 2 The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA Mindfulness https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-018-1066-1

Upload: others

Post on 18-Jul-2020

24 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Gender Differences in Self-Compassion: Examining the Role ...€¦ · between self-compassion and depression, anxiety, and stress in 20 studies (MacBeth and Gumley2012). Moreover,

ORIGINAL PAPER

Gender Differences in Self-Compassion: Examining the Role of GenderRole Orientation

Lisa M. Yarnell1 & Kristin D. Neff2 & Oliver A. Davidson2& Michael Mullarkey2

# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

AbstractMeta-analytic research suggests that women have slightly lower levels of self-compassion than men, but the contri-bution of gender role orientation has not been carefully explored. The current study examines the joint associationsof self-identified gender and gender role orientation with self-compassion in undergraduate (N = 504) and communityadult (N = 968) samples, using two measures of gender role orientation. The Bem Sex Role Inventory (BSRI) andthe Personal Attributes Questionnaire (PAQ) were used to classify each participant into a single gender role orien-tation category based on relative scores on the masculinity and femininity subscales, with respect to the sample, andaverage scores for each continuous subscale were also retained. The categorical gender role orientation classificationswere used in mean comparisons of self-compassion across groups, and the average masculinity and femininitysubscale scores were used in regression modeling. Results replicated the small effect size for gender differencesin self-compassion for both samples, with self-identified men having significantly higher levels of self-compassionthan self-identified women. Results also consistently showed that the impact of self-identified gender on self-compassion was smaller than the impact of masculine gender role orientation, suggesting that socialization plays astrong role, and that those high in both femininity and masculinity tended to have the highest levels of self-compassion. Effect sizes and specific findings differed by gender, sample, and gender role orientation measure.Therefore, a nuanced understanding of differences in self-compassion based on gender and gender role orientationis needed.

Keywords Self-compassion . Gender differences . Gender role orientation . Self-compassion training

Given the robust benefits of self-compassion suggested inthe empirical literature, it is important to clarify findingsfrom previous studies suggesting that men have higherlevels of self-compassion than women in North Americaby considering the role that gender role orientation mightplay in these differences. Self-compassion refers to how

we relate to ourselves in instances of perceived failure,inadequacy, or personal suffering. As defined by Neff(2003b), self-compassion entails three main elements,each of which has a positive and negative pole that rep-resents compassionate versus uncompassionate behavior:self-kindness versus self-judgment, a sense of commonhumanity versus isolation, and mindfulness versus over-identification. Self-kindness entails being understanding,warm, and supportive toward oneself. Rather than harshlyjudging oneself for personal inadequacies, the self is of-fered kindness and unconditional acceptance. It also in-volves actively soothing and comforting oneself in timesof suffering. Common humanity involves recognizing ourshared human experience, acknowledging that all humansare imperfect and make mistakes, that all people facechallenges in their lives. Rather than feeling isolated byone’s imperfection—feeling as if BI^ am the only one whois struggling—one takes a broader and more connected

Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article(https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-018-1066-1) contains supplementarymaterial, which is available to authorized users.

* Lisa M. [email protected]

1 American Institutes for Research, 1000 Thomas Jefferson St., NW,Washington, DC 20007-3835, USA

2 The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA

Mindfulnesshttps://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-018-1066-1

Page 2: Gender Differences in Self-Compassion: Examining the Role ...€¦ · between self-compassion and depression, anxiety, and stress in 20 studies (MacBeth and Gumley2012). Moreover,

perspective. Mindfulness involves paying attention toone’s present moment experience of suffering with clarityand balance, without being lost in an exaggeratedstoryline about negative aspects of oneself or one’s life,a process called Bover-identification.^ While these ele-ments are separable and do not co-vary uniformly, theydo mutually interact as a dynamic system to create a self-compassionate mindset.

It is important to note that self-compassion has bothByin^ and Byang^ qualities (Neff and Germer 2018). Intraditional Chinese philosophy, yin and yang refer to theseemingly opposite but interdependent qualities of male–female, hard–soft, and active–passive. Self-compassionhas not only yin qualities that stem from soothing,comforting, and validating suffering but also yang quali-ties that stem from protecting, providing, and motivatingaction to alleviate suffering. Many people think of self-compassion more in terms of yin, such as a mother sooth-ing her crying child, or a father putting his arm around hisupset son and saying, BIt’s going to be okay.^ However,yang is equally essential to self-compassion, with a pro-totypical image being a mother bear protecting her cubsfrom danger, or a father working two jobs to put food onthe table for his children. Thus, self-compassion cannot besaid to be essentially Bmasculine^ or Bfeminine,^ but in-stead transcends this duality in its focus on the alleviationof suffering.

The construct of self-compassion has received consid-erable attention over the last several years. Research typ-ically shows that self-compassion is positively associatedwith psychological wellbeing (Barnard and Curry 2012;Zessin et al. 2015). In fact, one meta-analysis found alarge effect size when examining the negative associationbetween self-compassion and depression, anxiety, andstress in 20 studies (MacBeth and Gumley 2012).Moreover, self-compassion is associated with psychologi-cal strengths such as happiness, optimism, and life satis-faction (Hollis-Walker and Colosimo 2011; Neff et al.2007), as well as being linked to increased motivation,health behaviors, positive body image, and resilient cop-ing (e.g., Albertson et al. 2015; Allen et al. 2012; Breinesand Chen 2013; Sbarra et al. 2012). Although levels ofself-compassion have been found to vary cross-culturally,self-compassion appears to be equally predictive of well-being across cultures (Neff et al. 2008).

Recent meta-analytic work indicates that men andwomen in North America (USA and Canada) tend todiffer in self-compassion levels as measured by totalscores on the SCS, with women reporting slightly lessself-compassion than men (Yarnell et al. 2015). Whilethe difference suggested was robust in that it was iden-tified across 88 studies, it was small in absolute size(Cohen’s d = 0.18). An effect of this size is meaningful

in the social sciences, however, as even a small effect islikely to result in differences in important life outcomes(Keith 2006). Additionally, the meta-analysis suggestedthat samples with a greater percentage of ethnicminority participants displayed larger gender differencesin self-compassion, such that cultural norms forBmasculinity^ and Bfemininity^ may be playing a role.To date, however, there has been little examination ofrole of gender role orientation in interpreting these ap-parent differences in men and women’s levels of self-compassion.

The small effect size observed in the meta-analysis be-tween men and women in their levels of self-compassionsuggests that most variance in self-compassion is notbetween but within gender groups (Hyde 2005). One im-portant source of individual variation may be orientationto Bmasculine^ and Bfeminine^ gender roles, which mayrelate in distinct ways with self-compassion. While thereis debate in the field over the precise meanings of sexversus gender (Lips 2017), we use the term sex to referto the anatomy of an individual’s reproductive system andsecondary sex characteristics, which can include male,female, and intersex persons (American PsychologicalAssociation [APA] and National Association of SchoolPsychologists 2015; American United Nations Free andEqual 2016). We use the term gender to refer one’s self-identity, which may or may not correspond to biologicalsex (Prince 2005). While this typically refers to Bmen^and Bwomen^ in the current Western societal context, italso includes a variety of nonbinary and pangender self-identifiers, such as Bbigender,^ Bnongendered,^ or beinggender BX^ (Richards et al. 2016). We use gender role torefer to a person’s psychological identification with typi-cal societal gender roles. However, adherence to a partic-ular gender role can be placed along a continuum, withsome persons more extremely or unvaryingly Bsex-typed^than others (Bem and Lenney 1976). Placement alongthese continuums can be referred to as gender roleorientation. Biological sex, gender, and gender role ori-entation are distinct constructs. For instance, two biolog-ical males who both self-identify as being a woman mayhave different degrees of identification with Bmasculine^and Bfeminine^ gender roles.

The majority of research conducted in the USA ongender role orientation and its correlates has relied onthe Bem Sex Role Inventory (BSRI; Bem 1974) and thePersonal Attributes Questionnaire (PAQ; Spence andHelmreich 1978). These measure self-reported associa-tions with items loosely reflecting agency/instrumentality,labeled Bmasculine^ traits (e.g., analytical, independent,competitive), and communality/expressiveness, labeledBfeminine^ traits (e.g., affectionate, gentle, understand-ing). In scale construction, these items were chosen from

Mindfulness

Page 3: Gender Differences in Self-Compassion: Examining the Role ...€¦ · between self-compassion and depression, anxiety, and stress in 20 studies (MacBeth and Gumley2012). Moreover,

pools of characteristics that were piloted among USundergraduate samples, selected as being more valuedfor one gender group than the other (Bmasculine^ formen, and Bfeminine^ for women). While items are similarbetween the measures, the PAQ was explicitly designed tomeasure instrumentality and expressiveness, rather thanBmasculinity^ and Bfemininity^ per se, based on the posi-tion that these characteristics are essentially what theBSRI measures (Spence and Helmreich 1978; Hoffmanand Borders 2001). In both measures, men and womencan associate themselves with either (Bmasculine^ orBfeminine^), neither (Bundifferentiated^), or both(Bandrogynous^) sets of characteristics, and be catego-rized accordingly. While the scales are somewhat narrowin their shaping gender role orientation only in terms ofagency/instrumentality and communality/expressiveness,the scales have also been interpreted in other ways (e.g.,as reflecting Bself-directedness^ and Bother-orientation,^Ballard-Reisch and Elton 1992; or reflecting multiple un-derlying dimensions of instrumentality, Lippa 1985;Pedhazur and Tetenbaum 1979).

Despite varying interpretations, a number of studiessuggest that the scales remain useful and valid for classi-fying men and women in North America into the originalgender orientation role categories (e.g., Ahmed et al. 2016;Holt and Ellis 1998; Oswald 2004), and they captureconstellations of characteristics shown to predict attitudes,behaviors, and health (Davis 2009; Wood and Eagly 2009).For example, individuals categorized as Bfeminine^ aremore likely to show symptoms of internalizing disorderssuch as depression, and less likely to report symptoms ofexternalizing disorders such as alcohol abuse; whileindividuals categorized as Bmasculine^ are more likely toshow symptoms of externalizing disorders such as aggres-sion (Price et al. 2018; Taylor 2015). There is some sug-gestion that both men and women who are classified asBandrogynous^ have better mental health outcomes, in-cluding decreased stress and anxiety (Lam and McBride-Chang 2007; Prakash et al. 2010). Men and women classi-fied as Bundifferentiated^ appear to have worse mentalhealth outcomes, including low self-esteem (Berthiaumeet al. 1996). However, the literature appears mixed onwhether Bandrogyny^ or Bmasculinity^ alone appears tobe most strongly associated with psychological health forboth genders, with some US studies suggesting that instru-mental (Bmasculine^) but not expressive (Bfeminine^)traits are predictive of healthy adjustment for both menand women (e.g., Aube et al. 1995; Moscovitch et al.2005; Whitley 1983).

Levels of self-compassion are likely to differ among menand women with various gender role orientations due to thecharacteristics thought to reflect Bmasculinity^ andBfemininity,^ and these associations may be unique for each

gender. For example, the qualities of nurturance and caringassociated with feminine gender norms may facilitate self-compassion. On the other hand, feminine norms of self-sacrifice (Baker-Miller 1986; Raffaelli and Ontai 2004;Ruble and Martin 1998) may lead to lower levels of self-compassion among Bfeminine^ women, as the needs of theself are not given attention or validity. Women who areBandrogynous^ may exhibit higher levels of self-compassion,as research has shown that androgynous girls tend to havehigher levels of authenticity and are comfortable assertingtheir voice (Harter et al. 1998). BAndrogynous^ women whoare higher in self-compassion may thus bemore able to remainrelationally connected while tending to the needs of the self,resulting in greater self-compassion. If so, it may be that ob-served gender differences in self-compassion between menand women do not hold true for Bandrogynous^ women whencompared to men in general.

Research has also shown that women who adopt tradi-tional Bfeminine^ gender roles tend to experience stressfulevents as more aversive and are less capable of bouncingback from failure experiences, compared to women whoidentify with more flexible gender roles (Nevid andRathus 2016). This may be due to the tendency ofBandrogynous^ individuals to more sensitively distinguishthe situational effectiveness of various coping strategies,and deploy them accordingly, including changing the situationwhen it is perceived as controllable (e.g., direct action), andchanging the self when it is not (e.g., acceptance; Cheng2005). These abilities may be associated with greater self-compassion, enabling Bandrogynous^ women to more effec-tively cope with stress and failure.

Similarly, it may be that Bmasculine^ norms of beingstrong, unemotional, pragmatic, and independent (Deauxand Kite 1993; Levant 2011; Pederson and Vogel 2007)work against masculine men’s ability to show tendernessto themselves in times of need, resulting in lower levels ofse l f -compass ion than among men wi th a moreBandrogynous^ orientation. For example, studies haveshown that men who adhere to traditional masculine gen-der norms tend to avoid or inhibit vulnerable feelings andintimacy with others (Levant and Pollack 1995; O’Neil2008); experience limited access to authentic feelings;and show heightened psychological distress (Levant2011; Pederson and Vogel 2007). In support of this prop-osition, one recent study of adult heterosexual menshowed that conformity to Bmasculine^ norms is associat-ed with lower levels of self-compassion, although the de-gree to which men associated with Bfeminine^ character-istics was not explored (Reilly et al. 2014).

Yet particularly for men, the social stigma tied togender-nonconforming displays may also be associatedwith lower levels of self-compassion. Gender displays thatare compatible with cultural expectations may be referred

Mindfulness

Page 4: Gender Differences in Self-Compassion: Examining the Role ...€¦ · between self-compassion and depression, anxiety, and stress in 20 studies (MacBeth and Gumley2012). Moreover,

to as gender-normative, while displays incompatible withthese expectations constitute gender nonconformity (APAand NASP 2015). In recent times, women have been ac-cepted, and even encouraged, to take on Bmasculine^traits and behaviors such as confidence in one’s abilities,competitiveness, leadership roles, and participation insports; yet in some contexts it is less acceptable for mento take on Bfeminine^ traits such as gentleness and kind-ness, concern for relationships, and emotional expression(Priess et al. 2009). For example, numerous studies havefound that parents and peers are more likely to disapproveof gender-role violations in boys than in girls (e.g., Kane2006; Martin 1990; Sirin et al. 2004).

More systematic research is needed on the associationbetween self-compassion and gender role orientation, toclarify the overly simplistic interpretation that men andwomen differ in self-compassion in a binary manner,and to consider how gender role orientation in conjunc-tion with gender may shape levels of self-compassion andits associated health benefits. Given that self-compassionentails both yin and yang elements which operate in adialectic, and that gender roles themselves operate in adialectic, it is likely that simplistic dichotomies are insuf-ficient to explain the association of self-compassion andgender. For example, Tatum (2013) examined the associ-ation of self-compassion with Bmasculinity^ andBfemininity^ scores using the PAQ in a combined sampleof US undergraduate and community participants, andshowed positive associations for both scales with self-compassion; however, interactions between Bmasculinity^and Bfemininity^ were not examined, and analyses werenot conducted separately for each gender group. Also,Patzak et al. (2017) found among German undergraduatesthat Bfeminine^ and Bundifferentiated^ men and womenhave lower self-compassion scores than Bmasculine^ andBandrogynous^ men and women using the BSRI, with noapparent modifying effect of gender group. Of course,gender roles may differ between Germany and NorthAmerica.

In order to elucidate these previous findings, the cur-rent study aimed to determine whether levels of self-compassion differ according to gender role orientation incombination with gender, by examining levels of self-compassion both within and between gender groups in aUS sample. (Note that examining biological sex was out-side the scope of this study.) Specifically, we were inter-ested in whether the self-compassion levels of self-identified men and women would differ according to theirgender role orientation. We also were interested in wheth-er differences between men and women would still beapparent when taking gender orientation role into account.We approach this question using a multidimensional per-spective, including two different samples (an undergraduate

and a community sample), and employing two distinct mea-sures of gender orientation role (the BSRI and PAQ). Whilethese measures differ in their precise operationalization, theyshare the same basic conceptual understanding of gender roleorientation. We hoped that this approach would help establishthe robustness of findings and provide information as to howvarying operationalization of gender role orientation may in-form apparent findings of gender differences. Because we arenot aware of prior research examining these questions inNorth American populations, we considered the examinationof these associations to be exploratory.

Method

Participants

Undergraduate Sample This sample was recruited from a sub-ject pool of undergraduate college students attending a public,southwestern US university. After removing two cases fromthe original sample due to not completing any of the questionson one of the three main questionnaires pertaining to genderorientation role or self-compassion, the final sample size wasN = 504, including 266 self-identified women and 238 self-identified men. Range in age was 17 to 24 years (M = 20.79,SD = 1.24). The sample was 54% European American, 31%Asian/Asian American, 9% Latino/Hispanic, 4%Multiethnic,2% African American, and 0.2% Native American.

Community Sample This sample was recruited from a USadult population via Mechanical Turk, an online survey re-search recruitment method that samples from the general pub-lic. After removing 16 cases from the original sample due tonot completing any questions on one of the three main ques-tionnaires, the final sample size was N = 968, including 616self-identified women and 352 self-identified men. Range inage was 18 to 76 years (M = 38.22, SD = 12.90), with no out-liers (all |z| < 2.93). The sample was 74% EuropeanAmerican,8%Asian/Asian American, 6%Latino/Hispanic, 10%AfricanAmerican, 2% Native American, and < 1% Other. In terms ofeducation, 37% reported having a 4-year college degree, 22%completed some college, 14% had a 2-year degree, 17% hadpursued graduate school, and 9% had a high school degree orless.

Procedure

The undergraduate sample was invited to complete a surveyquestionnaire online, and participating students were givencourse credit upon completion. The community sample wasdrawn from Mechanical Turk, which has been found to bemore nationally representative of the general population thancollege samples (Buhrmester et al. 2011). Participants were

Mindfulness

Page 5: Gender Differences in Self-Compassion: Examining the Role ...€¦ · between self-compassion and depression, anxiety, and stress in 20 studies (MacBeth and Gumley2012). Moreover,

paid $0.30 for completing the survey questionnaires (seeBuhrmester et al. 2011 for evidence of validity at lowpayment levels). Data collection was approved by anInstitutional Review Board and followed standard proceduresensuring consent and privacy.

Measures

Demographic Questionnaire A demographic questionnaireasked participants to indicate their gender, current age, andethnic background.

Self-Compassion Scale Participants were administered the 26-item Self-Compassion Scale (SCS; Neff 2003a), which as-sesses the six components of self-compassion: Self-Kindness(e.g., BI try to be understanding and patient toward aspects ofmy personality I don’t like^), Self-Judgment (e.g., BI’mdisapproving and judgmental about my own flaws andinadequacies^), Common Humanity (e.g., BI try to see myfailings as part of the human condition^), Isolation (e.g.,BWhen I think about my inadequacies it tends to make mefeel more separate and cut off from the rest of the world^),Mindfulness (e.g., BWhen something painful happens I try totake a balanced view of the situation^), and Over-identification(e.g., BWhen I’m feeling down I tend to obsess and fixate oneverything that’s wrong^). Responses are given on a 5-pointscale ranging from 1 = BAlmost Never^ to 5 = BAlmostAlways.^ In order to calculate a total self-compassion score,a grand mean is taken of the six subscale means after items inthe negative components are reverse coded. See Table 1 forinternal consistency for the SCS and other measures.

Bem Sex Role Inventory Participants were administered the60-item Bem Sex Role Inventory (BSRI; Bem 1974), whichcontains 20 items thought to reflect femininity (e.g., affection-ate, gentle, understanding); 20 items thought to reflect mascu-linity (e.g., analytical, competitive, individualistic); and 20

filler items thought to be gender-neutral (e.g., happy, friendly,jealous). Participants respond according to the degree towhich the item reflects himself or herself, on a scale from 1= Bnever or almost never^ to 7 = Balways or almost alwaystrue.^ Scores for the Masculinity and Femininity subscales arecalculated as the average of responses for items on each sub-scale. Participants are then classified into categories using amedian split for each subscale, calculated separately for menand women, into one of four gender role orientation catego-ries: Undifferentiated (below the median for both subscales),Feminine (at or above the median for femininity and below themedian for masculinity), Masculine (below the median forfemininity and at or above the median for masculinity), orAndrogynous (at or above the median for both femininityand masculinity).

Personal Attributes Questionnaire Participants were given thePersonal Attributes Questionnaire (PAQ; Spence et al. 1974),which contains eight items that reflect masculinity (instrumen-tality/agency), and eight items that reflect femininity (expres-siveness/communality). Items are on bipolar scales anchoredat the upper end by a characteristic seen as more stereotypi-cally associated with and preferable for one gender than theother, though socially desirable for both gender groups. Forexample, upper anchors for the femininity subscale (e.g., verykind, very understanding of others) are thought to be desirablefor both genders, but more strongly so for women, and moretypically exhibited by women; while upper anchors for themasculinity subscale (e.g., independent, very self-confident)are thought to be desirable for both genders, but more stronglyso for men, and more typically exhibited by men (Spence andHelmreich 1978). Participants respond on a scale of 1 to 5based on where they think they fall on the scale. Scores forthe Masculinity and Femininity subscales are calculated as theaverage of responses for the items on each subscale.Participants are classified into the same groups as for theBRSI, using a similar median split method, but with the

Table 1 Means, standard deviations (SDs) and internal reliability statistics for self-compassion and gender role orientation scales, by sample andgender group (between-gender comparisons)

Undergraduate sample Community sample

Women (N = 266) Men (N = 238) Women (N = 616) Men (N = 352)

M (SD) α M (SD) α M (SD) α M (SD) α

Self-Compassion 2.94a (0.58) 0.91 3.10b (0.58) 0.91 2.92a (0.81) 0.95 3.16b (0.78) 0.94

Femininity (BSRI) 5.10a (0.57) 0.80 4.67b (0.60) 0.81 4.77a (0.79) 0.85 4.33b (0.76) 0.85

Masculinity (BSRI) 4.64a (0.71) 0.87 5.05b (0.74) 0.89 4.22a (0.88) 0.88 4.64b (0.90) 0.89

Femininity (PAQ) 3.96a (0.51) 0.79 3.76b (0.58) 0.80 3.89a (0.65) 0.82 3.64b (0.66) 0.81

Masculinity (PAQ) 3.40a (0.51) 0.69 3.73b (0.61) 0.79 3.26a (0.70) 0.78 3.52b (0.70) 0.79

Means with different letters differ significantly across gender groups within each sample (p < 0.05 for undergraduate sample, p < 0.01 for communitysample)

Mindfulness

Page 6: Gender Differences in Self-Compassion: Examining the Role ...€¦ · between self-compassion and depression, anxiety, and stress in 20 studies (MacBeth and Gumley2012). Moreover,

median calculated across men and women. However, whenthe gender groups differ in sample size, as here, the average ofthe medians for each gender group is used (Spence andHelmreich 1978).

Note that utilizing predefined or external norms for themedians is another option for classification for the PAQ; how-ever, the more commonly used method of determiningsample-specific cutoffs accommodates differences in theunique balance of masculinity and femininity that is meaning-ful within each sample. Note also that alternative scoringmethods were examined for the PAQ in its initial construction,including use of continuous scores in regression modeling(Spence and Helmreich 1978). In the current study, weemployed the traditional median split method, and also exam-ined continuous scale scores in regressionmodels, for both theBSRI and the PAQ. This enabled us to examine the potentiallyunique information that may be revealed using either of thesemethods.

Data Analyses

Analyses were conducted in Stata Version 13.1 and MplusVersion 7.4 and were identical for each sample.Nonresponse for entire scales was minimal, as reported above,and missingness of data at the item level was considered to beat random, and was treated by averaging scores for other itemson the respective scale or subscale, within participant. Thisscale-wise treatment of missing data, which may be referredto as Bipsative mean imputation,^ essentially imputes the scalemean for each respondent’s observed items into the missingvalue. This method avoids reduction in sample size that occurswith listwise deletion, and avoids reduction of variability inscores across participants that tends to occur in sample-basedimputation (Schafer and Graham 2002). The majority of cases(99 to 100%) had at most 1–2 missing responses per scale orsubscale in both samples, with the remaining cases havingresponses for at least half of the items in each scale orsubscale.

Analyses consisted of two main parts, each utilized to ex-amine within- and between-gender group differences in self-compassion: mean comparisons using analysis of variancemethods, and regression modeling. Note that because we didnot have a diverse enough sample to analyze results by eth-nicity, we did not include ethnicity as a variable in this study.

Gender and Gender Orientation Role Mean Comparisons Tocompare mean self-compassion scores, we relied on analysisof variance methods using Stata. For comparisons betweengender groups, we utilized t-tests (analogous to a two-groupANOVA). For comparisons within gender groups (across gen-der role orientation), we used ANOVAs followed by Tukeytests (Stevens 1999). Bartlett’s tests of the homogeneity ofvariance assumption were examined for all ANOVAs, and

Welch test statistics are provided for cases not meeting thisassumption. For all results, we utilized a p value of α = 0.05,two-tailed, for the undergraduate sample, given the explorato-ry nature of this work; and α = 0.01, two-tailed, for the com-munity sample given its larger size and increased possibility oftype I error. We report effect sizes to inform on practical mag-nitude of effects. We used Cohen’s (1988) rules of thumb foreffect size of t tests d: 0.20 = small, 0.50 = medium, and0.80 = large. We used Keith’s (2006) rules of thumb for effectsize of ANOVA η2 (equivalent to R2): 0.01 = small, 0.10 =medium, and 0.25 = large.

Regression Modeling In addition to examining mean differ-ences in self-compassion based on gender role orientationcategory membership, we also considered the association ofself-compassion scores with continuousmeasures of feminin-ity and masculinity. While the BSRI and PAQ typically cate-gorize participants into groups based on the median splitmethod (Spence and Helmreich 1978; Hoffman and Borders2001), the continuous variables allowed the full range ofscores to be utilized in considering covariation with self-com-passion. This also addressed the concern that some partici-pants with average scores close to median cutoffs may bearbitrarily classified using the median split method, andallowed us to consider the unique contribution of masculinity,femininity, and their interaction to variation in self-compassion (holding the other characteristics constant) by en-tering each as a separate predictor in regression models.Additionally, these models allowed for within-group andbetween-group analyses of these associations.

We assessed unstandardized path coefficients of predictorsfor statistical significance and assessed effect size using stan-dardized regression coefficients. We also examined R2 valuesfor each model, as a measure of the amount of variance ex-plained by the predictors, for each measure and sample, usingKeith’s (2006) rules of thumb: 0.01 = small, 0.10 =medium,0.25 = large. Cohen’s (1988) rules of thumb for determiningthe effect size of standardized regression coefficients are asfollows: 0.10 = small, 0.30 =medium, 0.50 = large.

To determine main and potential interaction effects, we ransimultaneous regression analyses using Mplus, first within,then across gender groups, for each gender orientation rolemeasure. The first step of each regression model examinedmain effects of masculinity, femininity, and in the cross-gender model only, the variable of gender, on self-compas-sion. A second step added an interaction term between mas-culinity and femininity. The within-gender models centeredthe masculinity and femininity terms using gender group-mean centering, while the cross-gender models centered mas-culinity and femininity terms based on the whole sample. Thewithin-gender models allowmasculinity and femininity scoresto vary and covary as they uniquely do within each gendergroup, and the mean used for centering to be defined

Mindfulness

Page 7: Gender Differences in Self-Compassion: Examining the Role ...€¦ · between self-compassion and depression, anxiety, and stress in 20 studies (MacBeth and Gumley2012). Moreover,

accordingly, while the between-gender models consider thevariances, covariances, and grand means to all be definedwithout regard to gender group. ΔR2 between the step 1 andstep 2 models was used as a measure of effect size for theinteraction term using Keith’s (2006) rules of thumb forΔR2: 0.02 = small, 0.13 =medium, 0.26 = large. To probe sig-nificant interactions, we plotted the association (slope) be-tween one of the gender role orientation subscale scores(femininity) and self-compassion for lower and higher levelsof the other subscale (masculinity), defined by cutpoints of − 1SD and + 1 SD above or below the mean.

We utilized these models to examine whether gender roleorientation contributes to individual differences in self-com-passion, accounting for gender, and conversely, whetherbetween-gender differences in self-compassion persist, ac-counting for gender role orientation. We chose simultaneousregression in lieu of alternative models that posit strongertheory as to causality or that give precedence to any one ofthe examined variables.

Results

Comparison of Self-Compassion by Genderand Gender Role Orientation Group

For between-gender comparison of self-compassionscores, with all gender role orientation groups combined,Table 1 shows mean self-compassion scores by gender forthe undergraduate and community samples. As in the

prior meta-analysis (Yarnell et al. 2015), college mendisplayed higher self-compassion than college women,with a small effect size observed, t(502) = 3.09, p =0.002, d = 0.28. (Barlett’s tests indicated that the homoge-neity assumption was met for all gender group compari-sons.) In the community sample, men also displayedhigher self-compassion compared to women, with a smalleffect size observed, t(966) = 4.44, p < 0.001, d = 0.30.Note that self-compassion levels did not significantly dif-fer between undergraduate and community women (p =0.72), or between undergraduate and community men(p = 0.31). Table 1 also shows that men and women ineach sample differed significantly in levels of masculinityand femininity for both measures, in the expected direc-tion (p < 0.001).

Correlations between scores on the BSRI and PAQ inthe college sample were r = 0.70 for femininity and r =0.78 for masculinity, and r = 0.70 for femininity and r =0.73 for masculinity in the community sample. These rel-atively high correlations support the concurrent validity ofthe measures in the each sample (Bohrnstedt 2010), whilealso reflecting the uniqueness of each measure (i.e., strongbut not perfect correlations were found).

Next, for within-gender comparison of self-compassionscores, between gender role orientation groups, Table 2 showsthe percentage of men and women in each sample categorizedinto each gender role orientation group and their mean self-compassion score. As noted, the BSRI uses median splitscores within gender to classify gender role orientationgroups. Median values for femininity and masculinity

Table 2 Percentage of participants in each gender role orientation category and mean self-compassion score, by gender and measure, in undergraduateand community samples

BSRI PAQ

Undiff Fem Masc Andro Undiff Fem Masc Andro

Undergraduate women (N = 266)

Gender role classification (percent) 26 24 25 24 27 37 14 23

Self-compassion mean 2.89a 2.77a 2.87a 3.22b 2.85a 2.74a 3.14b 3.23b

Undergraduate men (N = 238)

Gender role classification (percent) 24 26 23 27 24 13 32 32

Self-compassion mean 2.97 3.04 3.18 3.20 2.84a 2.81a 3.15b 3.35b

Community women (N = 616)

Gender role classification (percent) 23 25 25 26 25 25 18 31

Self-compassion mean 2.69a 2.76a 2.89a 3.30b 2.69a 2.50a 3.13b 3.33b

Community men (N = 352)

Gender role classification (percent) 30 22 20 27 25 12 34 29

Self-compassion mean 2.87a 3.16ab 3.22ab 3.42b 2.74a 2.92ab 3.28bc 3.46c

Means not sharing same letter differ significantly across gender role classification groups, within each sample and measure (p < 0.05 for undergraduatesample, p < 0.01 for community sample). Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding. SD available from first author (omitted for parsimony)

Undiff undifferentiated, Fem feminine, Masc masculine, Andro androgynous

Mindfulness

Page 8: Gender Differences in Self-Compassion: Examining the Role ...€¦ · between self-compassion and depression, anxiety, and stress in 20 studies (MacBeth and Gumley2012). Moreover,

(respectively) were as follows: college women (5.10 and4.60), college men (4.65 and 5.15), community women(4.90 and 4.25), and community men (4.35 and 4.70). ThePAQ classifies into gender role orientation groups based onthe average of subgroup medians that are found for each gen-der. Median values on the PAQ for femininity and masculinity(respectively) were as follows: undergraduates (3.88 and 3.57)and community adults (3.81 and 3.38).

Note that the medians used for classification are slight-ly lower for all subscales and both genders in the com-munity sample, relative to the college sample; and squaresof SD shown in Table 1 indicate that scores were consis-tently more variable for all subscales and both genders inthe community sample, as well. Note additionally that theBSRI tended to classify participants more evenly acrossthe gender role orientation groups than the PAQ, in termsof percentages. These statistics demonstrate that the dis-tributions of femininity and masculinity scores are uniquefor each sample, and highlight the importance ofinterpreting gender role orientation as defined in eachsample, accordingly.

As a test of whether differences in self-compassionscores were significant, across gender orientation rolegroups, within each gender, among college women, aone-way (BSRI gender role orientation) ANOVA foundsignificant gender role orientation group differences inself-compassion, F(3, 262) = 7.87, p < 0.001 (small to me-dium ES, R2 = 0.08). Post hoc Tukey tests showed thatandrogynous women had higher self-compassion thanwomen in each of the other gender role orientationgroups, who did not differ from each other. Results basedon the PAQ also indicated significant gender role orienta-tion group differences in self-compassion, F(3, 262) =12.22, p < 0.001 (medium ES, R2 = 0.12). Post hocTukey tests showed that androgynous and masculinewomen (who did not differ from each other) had higherself-compassion than undifferentiated and feminine wom-en (who did not differ from each other). (The robust testresult for gender role orientation group differences basedon the BSRI among college women was as follows:Welch statistic (4, 172.32) = 9.00, p < 0.001, which sug-gests an identical conclusion.)

Among college men, a one-way (BSRI gender role ori-entation) ANOVA found no significant gender role orien-tation group differences in self-compassion, F(3, 234) =2.17, p = 0.08 (R2 = 0.03). Results for college men basedon the PAQ differed from those based on the BSRI, withsignificant gender role orientation group differences inself-compassion, F(3, 234) = 12.41, p < 0.001 (mediumES, R2 = 0.14). Androgynous and masculine men (whodid not differ) had higher self-compassion levels than un-differentiated and feminine men (who did not differ). (Therobust test result for gender role orientation group

differences based on the PAQ among college men was:Welch statistic (4, 123.70) = 10.91, p < 0.001, which sug-gests an identical conclusion.)

Among community women, a one-way (BSRI genderrole orientation) ANOVA showed significant gender roleorientation group differences in self-compassion, F(3,612) = 19.62, p < 0.001 (small to medium ES, R2 = 0.09).Similar to the undergraduate sample, post hoc Tukey testsshowed that androgynous women had higher self-compassion than women in each of the other gender roleorientation groups, who did not differ from each other.Results for community women based on the PAQ werealso similar to college women, with significant genderorientation role group differences in self-compassion indi-cated, F(3, 612) = 45.83, p < 0.001 (medium ES, R2 =0.12). Post hoc Tukey tests showed that androgynousand masculine women (who did not differ) had higherself-compassion than undifferentiated and feminine wom-en (who did not differ). (The robust test result for genderrole orientation group differences based on the BSRIamong community women was: Welch statistic (4,408.36) = 20.91, p < 0.001. Robust test result for genderrole orientation group differences based on the PAQamong community women was as follows: Welch statistic(4, 391.99) = 42.92, p < 0.001. These tests suggest identi-cal conclusions.)

Among community men, a one-way (BSRI gender roleorientation) ANOVA showed significant gender role ori-entation group differences in self-compassion, F(3,348) = 9.27, p < 0.001 (small ES, R2 = 0.07). Post hocTukeys found that androgynous men had more self-compassion than undifferentiated men, but no other groupdifferences were found. For the PAQ, significant groupdifferences in self-compassion were also found, F(3,348) = 18.40, p < 0.001 (medium ES, R2 = 0.14), withTukey contrasts showing that androgynous men hadhigher self-compassion than feminine and undifferentiatedmen. Masculine men also had more self-compassion thanundifferentiated men, but did not differ from androgynousor feminine men. (The robust test result for gender roleorientation group differences based on the BSRI amongcommunity men was as follows: Welch statistic (4,176.96) = 19.24, p < 0.001, which suggests an identicalconclusion.)

Within-Gender Associations of Self-Compassionwith Continuous Gender Role Orientation Variables

To examine the associations of continuous measures ofmasculinity, femininity, and their interaction within eachgender group, Table 3 shows results of the regressionmodels run within gender group, by sample. Thesemodels permit the gender role orientation variables to

Mindfulness

Page 9: Gender Differences in Self-Compassion: Examining the Role ...€¦ · between self-compassion and depression, anxiety, and stress in 20 studies (MacBeth and Gumley2012). Moreover,

vary and covary uniquely in each gender group, and theyemploy what is essentially group-mean centering. Maineffects remained similar in size and significance betweenthe step 1 (main effects) and step 2 (main plus interactioneffects) models, so results are shown for step 2 modelsonly for parsimony.

Undergraduate Sample Among undergraduate women, theBSRI model showed that both femininity and masculinityscores were significantly and positively associated with self-compassion, with a small ES for femininity, and a medium ESfor masculinity (see standardized regression coefficients inTable 3). The interaction term was also significant, with asmall-to-medium ES. For the PAQ, the association of femi-ninity with self-compassion scores was nonsignificant, whilemasculinity scores were significantly associated, with a medi-um effect size. The interaction term was not significant (p =0.29). Among undergraduate men, BSRI masculinity scoreswere significantly and positively associated with self-compas-sion, with a medium ES, while femininity and the interactionterm were not significant (p = 0.08 and p = 0.07, respectively).With the PAQ, however, both femininity andmasculinity weresignificant, positive predictors, with a small ES for femininityand a medium ES for masculinity. The interaction term wasalso significant, with a small ES.

Figure S1 of our online Supplementary Materials de-picts the association of femininity and self-compassion forundergraduates low versus high in masculinity for the

significant interactions found (BSRI for women, andPAQ for men). Those high in both femininity and mascu-linity had the highest levels of self-compassion.

Community Sample Among community women, resultswere similar to those found in the undergraduate samplebased on the BSRI, with both femininity and masculinityshowing significant, positive associations with self-com-passion, with a small ES for femininity and a medium ESfor masculinity (see standardized regression coefficientsin Table 3). Also, the interaction term was significantlyassociated with self-compassion beyond these main ef-fects, with a small ES. The PAQ model showed that mas-culinity had a significant, positive association with self-compassion, with a large ES indicated, but femininity didnot make a significant contribution. Unlike for undergrad-uate women, a significant interaction between femininityand masculinity scores was also found for communitywomen, with a small ES indicated. As shown in Fig. S2,those high in both femininity and masculinity using eachmeasure of gender orientation role had the highest levelsof self-compassion.

Finally, among community men, results with the BRSImodel indicated significant, positive associations of both mas-culinity and femininity with self-compassion, with a small-to-medium ES observed for femininity and a medium ES formasculinity, but no significant interaction. Results were simi-lar among community men based on the PAQ, again with both

Table 3 Unstandardized (SE) and standardized regression coefficients and variance explained for regression models predicting self-compassion fromfemininity and masculinity scores and their interaction (by gender, sample, and gender role orientation measure)

BSRI PAQ BSRI PAQ

b (SE) β b (SE) β b (SE) β b (SE) β

Undergraduate women (N = 266) Community women (N = 616)

Intercept 2.94 (0.03) – 2.93 (0.03) – 2.92 (0.03) – 2.91 (0.03) –

Femininity 0.13* (0.06) 0.13 0.00 (0.06) 0.00 0.14*** (0.04) 0.13 0.05 (0.04) 0.04

Masculinity 0.22*** (0.05) 0.27 0.46*** (0.06) 0.41 0.27*** (0.04) 0.29 0.60*** (0.04) 0.52

Interaction 0.26** (0.08) 0.18 0.13 (0.12) 0.06 0.15*** (0.04) 0.16 0.16*** (0.05) 0.10

R2 0.12 0.17 0.11 0.29

ΔR2 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.01

Undergraduate men (N = 238) Community men (N = 352)

Intercept 3.09 (0.04) – 3.08 (0.04) – 3.15 (0.04) – 3.15 (0.04) –

Femininity 0.11 (0.06) 0.11 0.14* (0.06) 0.14 0.19*** (0.05) 0.18 0.17** (0.06) 0.15

Masculinity 0.20*** (0.05) 0.25 0.36*** (0.06) 0.37 0.22*** (0.05) 0.25 0.51*** (0.05) 0.46

Interaction 0.13 (0.07) 0.12 0.19* (0.07) 0.15 0.02 (0.05) 0.02 0.03 (0.07) 0.02

R2 0.08 0.18 0.12 0.27

ΔR2 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.00

Femininity and Masculinity subscale scores centered for each measure, within each gender group and sample, prior to cross-multiplication. Results arefor step 2 (main and interaction effect) models, with ΔR2 indicated relative to step 1 (main effects only) models. Significance and standardizedcoefficient omitted for intercepts

*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001

Mindfulness

Page 10: Gender Differences in Self-Compassion: Examining the Role ...€¦ · between self-compassion and depression, anxiety, and stress in 20 studies (MacBeth and Gumley2012). Moreover,

femininity and masculinity scores showing significant, posi-tive associations with self-compassion, with a small ES ob-served for femininity and a large ES for masculinity, but nosignificant interaction.

Across-Gender Associations of Self-Compassionwith Continuous Gender Role Orientation Variables

Finally, to examine the associations of continuous mea-sures of masculinity, femininity, and their interactionacross gender groups, Table 4 shows results of the regres-sion models run for men and women combined, by sam-ple. These models directly address the question of wheth-er gender group differences in self-compassion persist,when taking gender role orientation into account. By def-inition, the gender role orientation variables vary and co-vary in these models as they do in each sample as awhole, and for consistency, grand sample-mean centeringwas applied. As main effects remained similar in size andsignificance between the step 1 (main effects) and step 2(main plus interaction effects) models, results are againshown for step 2 models only for parsimony.

Undergraduate Sample For undergraduates, results based onthe BSRI showed small, statistically significant, positive asso-ciations of gender (coded B0^ for women and B1^ for men)and femininity scores with self-compassion; and a medium-sized, statistically significant, positive association of mascu-linity with self-compassion (see standardized regressioncoefficients in Table 4). Additionally, the interaction termshowed a significant and small effect, above and beyond thesemain effects. These predictors explained 11% of variance inself-compassion (a medium-sized amount of variance in the

social sciences), though a statistically significant amount ofvariance remained unaccounted for (p < 0.001), as indicatedby the residual variance parameter (as found for all modelspresented here). This suggests that both gender and gender roleorientation (asmeasured by the BSRI) contribute meaningfullyto individual differences in self-compassion, accounting foreach other—that is, gender differences in self-compassionpersist even accounting for gender role orientation, and viceversa. However, the significant residual variance indicates thatother sources of individual differences exist.

In contrast, results based on the PAQ showed that mas-culinity scores were positively and significantly associat-ed with self-compassion, with a medium effect size, ac-counting for the other predictors, while gender and femi-ninity scores were not (p = 0.61 and p = 0.17, respective-ly). This suggests that after accounting for gender roleorientation, gender differences between men and womenin self-compassion are no longer significant. Additionally,a statistically significant, small-sized interaction was indi-cated. The predictors in this model explained about 19%of variance in self-compassion.

Notably, in both the BSRI and PAQ models, genderand femininity had roughly equivalent association withself-compassion, accounting for other predictors in themodel, while the association for masculinity was stronger,and the interaction between masculinity and femininitywas meaningful. The association for gender depended onthe gender role orientation measure. Figure S3 depicts theassociation of femininity and self-compassion for under-graduates low versus high in masculinity for the signifi-cant interactions found for each measure. Those high inboth femininity and masculinity had the highest levels ofself-compassion.

Table 4 Unstandardized (SE) and standardized regression coefficients and variance explained for regression models predicting self-compassion fromgender, femininity, masculinity, and femininity by masculinity interaction terms (by sample and gender role orientation measure)

Undergraduate sample (N = 504) Community sample (N = 968)

BSRI PAQ BSRI PAQ

b (SE) β b (SE) β b (SE) β b (SE) β

Intercept 2.96 (0.04) – 2.99 (0.04) – 2.93 (0.03) – 2.96 (0.03) –

Gender 0.12* (0.06) 0.10 0.03 (0.06) 0.02 0.19*** (0.05) 0.11 0.11 (0.05) 0.06

Femininity 0.12** (0.05) 0.13 0.07 (0.05) 0.06 0.15*** (0.03) 0.15 0.09 (0.04) 0.08

Masculinity 0.21*** (0.04) 0.27 0.41*** (0.04) 0.41 0.25*** (0.03) 0.29 0.58*** (0.03) 0.51

Interaction 0.15*** (0.04) 0.14 0.19** (0.07) 0.13 0.10*** (0.03) 0.11 0.12** (0.05) 0.08

R2 0.11 0.19 0.13 0.29

ΔR2 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.00

Gender groups coded as 0 = women, 1 =men. Femininity andMasculinity subscale scores centered for eachmeasure, based on thewhole sample, prior tocross-multiplication. Results are for step 2 (main and interaction effect) models, with ΔR2 indicated relative to step 1 (main effects only) models.Significance and standardized coefficient omitted for intercepts

*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001

Mindfulness

Page 11: Gender Differences in Self-Compassion: Examining the Role ...€¦ · between self-compassion and depression, anxiety, and stress in 20 studies (MacBeth and Gumley2012). Moreover,

Community Sample In the community sample, results similar-ly showed that the strongest predictor of self-compassion wasmasculinity (see Table 4). Specifically, similar to results forthe college sample, the BSRI model showed statistically sig-nificant, positive associations of all main effect predictors withself-compassion: small effects for gender and femininity, anda medium effect for masculinity. Additionally, a statisticallysignificant, small-sized interaction was indicated. Similar tothe college sample, these predictors explained about 13% ofvariance in self-compassion scores.

Results for the communuity PAQ model were also sim-ilar to those for the PAQ in the college sample.Specifically, statistical significance (p < 0.01) was notreached for gender or femininity, but a large, statisticallysignificant, positive effect was observed for masculinity.Additionally, a statistically significant, small-sized inter-action was indicated. These variables accounted for 29%of variance in self-compassion, considered a large amountof variance explained according to rules of thumb, thoughas for all other models, a significant amount of variance inscores remained unexplained (p < 0.001).

As in the college sample, overall, the models showed arelatively stronger association of masculinity with self-compassion scores than other predictors, and suggestedthat the interaction between masculinity and femininityis meaningful. Similarly, the association between genderand self-compassion, accounting for other variables,depended on the gender role orientation measure.Figure S4 depicts the association of femininity and self-compassion for community sample members low versushigh in masculinity for the significant interactions foundfor each measure. Those high in both femininity and mas-culinity had the highest levels of self-compassion.

Discussion

Findings from this study provide greater nuance to priormeta-analytic findings of lower levels of self-compassionamong women relative to men in North America (Yarnellet al. 2015). While replicating this finding, current resultsalso consistently showed that the impact of self-identifiedgender on self-compassion appears to be smaller than theimpact of having a masculine gender role orientation, sug-gesting that socialization plays a strong role in the tenden-cy to be compassionate to oneself. Also, those high inboth communal and expressive traits (associated withBfemininity^) and agentic and instrumental traits (associ-ated with Bmasculinity^) appear to have the highest levelsof self-compassion. Additionally, a key finding was thatmasculinity’s association with self-compassion was stron-ger than the association for femininity, yet interactionsbetween levels of levels of masculinity and femininity

may also be important, especially for those who identifyas women.

Contributions of Gender and Gender Role Orientation

This study replicated past meta-analytic findings that self-identified men tend to have slightly higher levels of self-compassion than self-identified women (Yarnell et al. 2015),to the magnitude of a small effect size. This difference wasfound for both college and community samples. Gender dif-ferences in self-compassion are consistent with research indi-cating that women tend to be more self-critical (Cheng andFurnham 2004), and to brood and ruminate (Johnson andWhisman 2013; Nolen-Hoeksema et al. 1999), and have lowerlevels of mindfulness than men on average (Bergomi et al.2012; Feldman et al. 2007; Lilja et al. 2011; Dundas et al.2013; Gilbert and Waltz 2010). This finding may appear sur-prising in light of literature indicating that women tend todisplay more empathic concern and compassion for othersthan men do (Mestre et al. 2009; Sprecher and Fehr 2005;Van der Graaff et al. 2014). It appears that this tendency doesnot generalize to how women treat themselves, however. Thisalso implies that there is a greater discrepancy between thedegree of compassion women show to themselves versusothers, compared to men.

When analyzing the contribution of gender role orientation,however, results were more complex. Our findings suggestthat gender role orientation plays an important role in individ-ual self-compassion levels. In general, androgynous and mas-culine men and women tended to have the highest levels ofself-compassion. First, among both undergraduate and com-munity women, comparisons using gender orientation rolecategories based on the BSRI showed that androgynous wom-en had more self-compassion than women in each of the othergender orientation role groups (who did not differ from eachother). Using the PAQ, undergraduate and community womenwho were classified as androgynous and masculine (who didnot differ from each other) had more self-compassion thanundifferentiated and feminine women (who did not differ fromeach other).

Among undergraduate men, there were no differences inself-compassion according to gender orientation role categorybased on the BSRI. Using the PAQ, androgynous and mascu-line men (who did not differ from each other) had higher self-compassion levels than undifferentiated and feminine men(who did not differ from each other), as was found for under-graduate and community women. When examining the self-compassion levels of community men, androgynous men hadmore self-compassion than undifferentiated men using theBSRI, but no other group differences were found. Using thePAQ, androgynous men had more self-compassion than fem-inine and undifferentiated men. Masculine men also had more

Mindfulness

Page 12: Gender Differences in Self-Compassion: Examining the Role ...€¦ · between self-compassion and depression, anxiety, and stress in 20 studies (MacBeth and Gumley2012). Moreover,

self-compassion than undifferentiated men, but did not differfrom androgynous or feminine men.

Results from our regression models examining gender roleorientation as continuous predictors of self-compassion withineach gender and sample yielded similar results. Overall, mas-culinity was the most consistent positive predictor of self-compassion, for both men and women and with both genderrole orientation measures, with a medium effect size typicallyobserved. Femininity was a significant positive predictorusing the BSRI for undergraduate and community women,as well as community men; and was a positive significantpredictor using the PAQ for undergraduate and communitymen (but not women), with a small effect size. Moreover,the interaction of masculinity and femininity was a significantpredictor in three of the four models examined among women(except for the PAQ model for undergraduate women), with asmall effect size. In contrast, the interaction was only signifi-cant in one of the four models examined among men (the PAQmodel for undergraduate men).

The finding that masculinity was the strongest and mostconsistent predictor of self-compassion may be surprising giv-en that masculine gender norms demand display of Bhard^rather than Bsoft^ emotions in the face of adversity (Mahaliket al. 2003). Yet, self-compassion has both Byin^ and Byang^aspects, and can take the form of protecting, providing, andmotivating the self, qualities that are part of more masculinegender role norms (Neff and Germer 2018). A common mis-perception about self-compassion that stands in the way ofpeople adopting the stance is that it is Bweak^ (Robinsonet al. 2016). However, self-compassion is a strength in timesof struggle, helping people cope in a more powerful mannerwith stress (Allen and Leary 2010), chronic illness (Siroiset al. 2015), divorce (Sbarra et al. 2012), and even combattrauma (Hiraoka et al. 2015). Also, masculine gender rolenorms value self-assertion and independence, which maytranslate into a greater willingness to take one’s own needseriously and give oneself compassion in times of distress.

It should be noted that femininity also significantly predict-ed self-compassion in the positive direction, even though find-ings were less consistent and effect sizes were typically small.Thus, our results suggest that higher levels of the traits asso-ciated with femininity are not a liability in terms of self-compassion and help buttress levels of the construct, just notas strongly as the traits associated with masculinity. Femininetraits such as being affectionate, gentle, understanding towardothers correspond to the Byin^ self-compassion qualities ofsoothing, comforting, and validating, and appear to generalizeat least somewhat toward the self. However, feminine normsof self-sacrifice (which are themselves influenced by powerinequality; Neff and Harter 2002) may somewhat attenuate thestrength of this association. The common misperception thatself-compassion is Bselfish^ (Robinson et al. 2016) may alsobe standing in the way of people with a feminine gender role

orientation giving themselves permission to be kind to them-selves. Masculine traits emphasizing autonomy and self-asser-tion, on the other hand, may facilitate caring for the self with-out being in conflict with norms of self-sacrifice.

The interaction between masculinity and femininity alsosignificantly predicted self-compassion, especially for thoseidentifying as women. Note that three of the four within-gender regression models found that the interaction betweenmasculinity and femininity significantly predicted self-compassion for women, but only one was found for men.This may suggest that women experience more robust benefitsin self-compassion when they embrace both masculine andfeminine qualities. This is in accord with research suggestingthat androgynous women experience more authentic assertionof their needs, perceive higher levels of support, and evaluatethemselves more positively (Harter et al. 1998). It is also con-sistent with research showing that androgynous women havegreater perceived self-efficacy and mental health (Rath andMishra 2013; Thornton and Leo 1992) and are better able todeal with stress and bounce back from failure (Nevid andRathus 2016). If Bmasculine^ norms tend to emphasize auton-omy and independence and Bfeminine^ norms caring and nur-turing, then it may be that having both helps women to fullyapply self-compassion to themselves. Still, it is likely thatbalancing yin and yang qualities is most conductive to thedevelopment of self-compassion for persons of all genders.Further research should explore this issue further.

An important question concerns the degree to whichgender differences in self-compassion are due to self-identified gender versus gender role orientation. First ofall, note that self-identified men and self-identified wom-en differed in terms of their levels of masculinity andfemininity for both samples, and according to both genderrole orientation measures—suggesting that gender differ-ences in self-compassion may be due in part to genderdifferences in gender role orientation. When entering gen-der and gender role orientation as simultaneous predictorsof self-compassion, results differed by measure. Results ofthe cross-gender regression models based on the BSRIsuggested that differences in self-compassion betweenmen and women remain even accounting for gender roleorientation; while results based on the PAQ indicated thatthe association of gender with self-compassion was nolonger significant, after masculinity, femininity, and theirinteraction were accounted for. The results also suggestedthat gender role orientation predicts meaningful differ-ences in self-compassion, accounting for gender.Additionally, all four cross-gender models suggested thatlevels of masculinity have the greatest impact on self-compassion among the three examined variables, and thatthe interaction between masculinity and femininity con-tributes additionally to these levels. Last, results consis-tently showed that the impact of gender on self-

Mindfulness

Page 13: Gender Differences in Self-Compassion: Examining the Role ...€¦ · between self-compassion and depression, anxiety, and stress in 20 studies (MacBeth and Gumley2012). Moreover,

compassion was smaller than the impact of masculinegender role orientation, suggesting that socialization playsa strong role.

Multiplistic Approach to Gender, Gender RoleOrientation, and Self-Compassion

As emphasized in this discussion, our findings were shaped bythe gender role orientationmeasure used, as well as the samplebeing investigated. The BSRI and PAQ take the same generalapproach to measuring gender role orientation (direct assess-ment of self-identification with two independent trait qualities,with item pools based on original US undergraduate studentsamples). Yet item pools and scales for the BSRI and PAQdiffer (e.g., the latter employs bipolar endorsement subscales,and focusing more directly on instrumentality and expressive-ness). Our two samples were also distinct in terms of impor-tant social characteristics including age and level of education.Accordingly, both main and interaction effects differed tosome degree depending on the model at hand.

The fact that the PAQ models consistently explained morevariance in self-compassion scores than the BSRI models maysuggest that instrumentality and expressiveness (as directlymeasured in the PAQ) have stronger associations with self-compassion than Bmasculinity^ and Bfemininity^ as repre-sented byBSRI.While the BSRI has been suggested to largelymeasure instrumentality and expressiveness as well (Spenceand Helmreich 1978), it has also been argued that these areonly aspects of what the BSRI measures (Bem 1981; also seeSpence and Buckner 2000). For example, the BSRI containssome items not reflective of instrumentality and expressive-ness per se, instead more directly reflecting qualities that havetraditionally been more desirable for one gender group (e.g.,Bathletic^ among the masculinity items, and Bshy^ and Bsoft-spoken^ among the femininity items). The BSRI scoresshowed strong internal consistency for both samples and bothgenders in our study. Nonetheless, reliability does not implyvalidity, i.e., that a construct has been properly named.However, correlations between the measures within each sam-ple and gender indicated a great deal of overlap, as reported,supporting the construct validity of the measures (i.e., theBSRI and PAQ measure largely the same construct). Moreresearch should be done on the precise characteristics in-volved in the associations uncovered here, and other methodsof measuring gender role orientation should be explored (e.g.,priming tasks).

While these nuances add richness to our findings, the sameoverarching findings were obtained: self-identified gender andgender role orientation each contribute meaningfully to indi-vidual and group differences in self-compassion (with all ef-fects consistently in a positive direction); bothmasculinity andfemininity are positively associated with self-compassion(though masculinity to a greater degree); and the interaction

between masculinity and femininity contributes meaningfullyto individual differences in self-compassion to some extent.The fact that these patterns were obtained across analytic ap-proaches, measures, and samples adds support to our findings.

Limitations and Future Research Directions

While providing insight on the role of gender role orientationin interpreting gender differences in self-compassion, this in-vestigation had several limitations. First, sizable variation inself-compassion remained unaccounted for, above and be-yond the gender and gender role orientation variables. Thishighlights that there are a host of additional sources of varia-tion in self-compassion besides gender and gender role orien-tation that were not examined. Variables such as attachmentstyle (Pepping et al. 2015; Wei et al. 2011), parental criticism(Neff and McGehee 2010), and trauma history (Tanaka et al.2011) have all been shown to have a strong influence on self-compassion, and it is likely that individual life history plays aneven more important role than gender or gender role orienta-tion in influencing self-compassion. It may also be that sexualorientation interacts with gender and gender role orientation interms of predicting self-compassion, and this possibilityshould be explored in future research.

Importantly, the roles of social stigma and hegemony inthese processes should be examined. Research has suggestedthat cross-gender role orientation may be accompanied byperceived stigma, perhaps particularly so among those whoidentify as men (Kane 2006; Martin 1990; Sirin et al. 2004),suggesting a system in which traditional gender roles are re-inforced. The fact that the Bmasculine^ items in the BSRI andPAQwere thought in original samples to be more desirable formen than for women highlights systems of power in which itis more desirable for men than for women to be instrumentalor agentic. Subsequent research has suggested that many itemsin the BRSI scales can be viewed as equally desirable amongwomen and men, as gender-neutral, or as being mixed in in-terpretation (Ballard-Reisch and Elton 1992; Hoffman andBorders 2001). This suggests that the scales, while reliable,may be assessing somewhat different constructs than intendedin original design. Therefore, interpretations of our findingsshould be made cautiously, and further consideration of theconstructs underlying the associations uncovered here is war-ranted. Another major limitation is that we examined US sam-ples only and were not able to examine findings separately byethnic group. Gender role orientation has been found to differin meaning across U.S. ethnic groups (Abrams et al. 2016), soit will be important to explore these findings in other popula-tions to examine the robustness of effects across ethnic andcultural groups.

Also, our findings were limited to understanding genderrole orientation as measured by the BSRI and PAQ. As em-phasized, both of these measures have received some criticism

Mindfulness

Page 14: Gender Differences in Self-Compassion: Examining the Role ...€¦ · between self-compassion and depression, anxiety, and stress in 20 studies (MacBeth and Gumley2012). Moreover,

(see Hoffman and Borders 2001), so future research mightfruitfully employ other ways to measure gender orientationrole such as priming tasks (e.g., van Well et al. 2007),Implicit Association Tasks (e.g., Greenwald and Banaji1995), or gender diagnosticity measures (e.g., Lippa 1991).However, the BRSI and the PAQ offer a Bstandard^ definitionof what has been thought to constitute Bmasculinity^ andBfemininity^ in North America via their set item pools; yetthe traditional scoring methods for these measures define therelative balance of Bmasculine^ and Bfeminine^ characteris-tics used for gender role classification to be derived internally,based on the sample at hand, in acknowledging the Bfluid^definition of gender roles with respect to sample characteris-tics. Nonetheless, future research should corroborate findingswith observer reports, in light of the bias potentially intro-duced by these self-report measures. Future research mightalso fruitfully employ qualitative methods to better understandwhy self-compassion was higher among androgynous andmasculine persons, and the ways in which distinct groupsmanifest these characteristics.

The cross-sectional nature of this research means that thedirectionality of effects cannot be established. It is possiblethat having a particular gender role orientation impacts levelof self-compassion, but it is equally possible that having acertain level of self-compassion influences the embrace ofcharacteristics in the gender role orientation measures—forexample, being willing to take (healthy) risks (an indicatorof Bmasculinity^); or being sensitive to the needs of others(an indicator of Bfemininity^). Future research may employlongitudinal designs to try to better understand these associa-tions, and path modeling can be used to explore how variationin gender orientation role and self-compassion explain genderdifferences for specific outcomes.

Although our research found that women tend to haveslightly lower levels of self-compassion than men, self-compassion is a skill that can be learned by all people. TheMindful Self-Compassion program (Neff and Germer 2013),for instance, and its adaptation for adolescents called MakingFriends with Yourself (Bluth et al. 2016), have both beenshown to be effective in raising participants’ self-compassionlevels, in addition to improving other aspects of wellbeingsuch as lowering depression and increasing life satisfaction.Interestingly, based on the personal observations of the secondauthor, programs such as MSC tend to disproportionately at-tract women (about 85% of the audience). Even though mentend to be slightly more self-compassionate than women, theymay have stronger misgivings about self-compassion(Robinson et al. 2016), though this has yet to be researched.The fear that self-compassion is a weakness might mean thatmen are less likely to sign up for a self-compassion course.There are many men who lack self-compassion who couldgreatly benefit from developing this skill, but ironically, mas-culine gender role norms may prevent them from doing so.

Developers of theMSC program are trying to develop ways toattract more men to their program, in part by using languagesuch as Binner strength training^ rather than Bself-compassiontraining.^ Pilot testing suggests that reframing language helpsmen be open to self-compassion, especially to the Byin^ qual-ities that may feel vulnerable at first. People are increasinglyrecognizing that social prescriptions against vulnerability formen contribute to a culture of violence, and there appears to begreater willingness on the part of some men to confront theseprescriptions (Jewkes et al. 2015). Feminine gender rolesseem not to interfere as strongly with the willingness to learnself-compassion, although there is also a great desire amongwomen to explore the Byang^ aspects, in part due to societalevents highlighting the harmful consequences of patriarchy(O'Neil et al. 2018). Thus, the developers of MSC are startingto explicitly discuss the interwoven nature of yin and yang inself-compassion and teach practices cultivating both, whichwill hopefully help all persons to be more self-compassionate in daily life.

Given the robust benefits of self-compassion, it will beimportant to address how gender socialization norms may beputting some persons at a disadvantage in terms of adoptingthis adaptive way of coping with difficult emotions and lifeevents. One strategy may be for initiatives to focus on encour-aging the development of self-compassion among all people,regardless of identity affirmed or direction of predominantgender role orientation.

Authors’ Contributions LY: designed and executed the study, collectedthe college student data, conducted all submitted analyses, and wrotelarge portions of the paper. KN: collaborated with the design and writingof the study, including choice of statistical models and theoretical align-ment. OD: collected the community sample data. MM: assisted with dataanalysis, literature search, and writing. All authors approved the finalversion of the manuscript for submission.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Ethics Statement No funding was received for this study. All proce-dures performed involving human participants were in accordance withthe ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research commit-tee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments orcomparable ethical standards. This article does not contain any studieswith animals performed by any of the authors. Informed consent wasobtained from all individual participants included in the study. Both partsof the data collection (undergraduate and community) were reviewed andapproved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at the University ofTexas at Austin.

Conflict of Interest Lisa M. Yarnell declares that she has no conflicts ofinterest. Kristin D. Neff is co-creator of the Mindful Self-Compassionprogram, described in this manuscript. Oliver A. Davidson declares thathe has no conflicts of interest. Michael Mullarkey declares that he has noconflicts of interest.

Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to juris-dictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Mindfulness

Page 15: Gender Differences in Self-Compassion: Examining the Role ...€¦ · between self-compassion and depression, anxiety, and stress in 20 studies (MacBeth and Gumley2012). Moreover,

References

Abrams, J. A., Javier, S. J., Maxwell, M. L., Belgrave, F. Z., & Nguyen,A. B. (2016). Distant but relative: Similarities and differences ingender role beliefs among African American and VietnameseAmerican women. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic MinorityPsychology, 22(2), 256–267.

Ahmed, T., Vafaei, A., Belanger, E., Phillips, S., & Zunzunegui, M.(2016). Bem sex role inventory validation in the international mo-bility in aging study. Canadian Journal on Aging / La RevueCanadienne Du Vieillissement, 35(3), 348–360.

Albertson, E. R., Neff, K. D., & Dill-Shackleford, K. E. (2015). Self-compassion and body dissatisfaction in women: A randomized con-trolled trial of a brief meditation intervention. Mindfulness, 6, 444–454.

Allen, A., & Leary, M. R. (2010). Self-compassion, stress, and coping.Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4(2), 107–118.

Allen, A. B., Goldwasser, E. R., & Leary, M. R. (2012). Self-compassionand well-being among older adults. Self and Identity, 11, 428–453.

American Psychological Association & National Association of SchoolPsychologists (APA & NASP). (2015). Resolution on gender andsexual orientation diversity in children and adolescents in schools.Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/about/policy/orientation-diversity.aspx. Accessed 15 July 2018

Aube, J., Norcliffe, H., Craig, J., & Koestner, R. (1995). Gender charac-teristics and adjustment-related outcomes: Questioning the mascu-linity model. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 284–295.

Baker-Miller, J. (1986). Toward a new psychology of women. New York:McGraw Hill.

Ballard-Reisch, D., & Elton, M. (1992). Gender orientation and the BemSex Role Inventory: A psychological construct revisited. Sex Roles,27, 291–306.

Barnard, L. K., & Curry, J. F. (2012). The relationship of clergy burnoutto self-compassion and other personality dimensions. PastoralPsychology, 61, 149–163.

Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155–162.

Bem, S. L. (1981). The BSRI and gender schema theory: A reply toSpence and Helmreich. Psychological Review, 88, 369–371.

Bem, S. L., & Lenney, E. (1976). Sex typing and the avoidance of cross-sex behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 48–54.

Bergomi, C., Tschacher, W., & Kupper, Z. (2012). Measuring mindful-ness: First steps towards the development of a comprehensive mind-fulness scale. Mindfulness, 4, 18–32.

Berthiaume, M., David, H., Saucier, J.-F., & Borgeat, F. (1996).Correlates of gender role orientation during pregnancy and the post-partum. Sex Roles, 35, 781–800.

Bluth, K., Gaylord, S. A., Campo, R. A., Mullarkey, M. C., & Hobbs, L.(2016). Making friends with yourself: A mixed methods pilot studyof a mindful self-compassion program for adolescents.Mindfulness,7, 479–492.

Bohrnstedt, G. W. (2010). Measurement models for survey research. In P.V. Marsden & J. D. Wright (Eds.), Handbook of survey research(2nd ed., pp. 347–404). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group PublishingLimited.

Breines, J. G., & Chen, S. (2013). Activating the inner caregiver: The roleof support-giving schemas in increasing state self-compassion.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 58–64.

Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’sMechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high quality,data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(1), 3–5.

Cheng, C. (2005). Processes underlying gender-role flexibility: Do an-drogynous individuals knowmore or know how to cope? Journal ofPersonality, 73, 645–673.

Cheng, H., & Furnham, A. (2004). Perceived parental rearing style, self-esteem and self-criticism as predictors of happiness. Journal ofHappiness Studies, 5(1), 1–21.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences(2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Davis, S. N. (2009). Bem sex role inventory. In J. O’Brien (Ed.),Encyclopedia of gender and society (pp. 58–60). Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.

Deaux, K., & Kite, M. E. (1993). Gender stereotypes. In F. Denmark &M. Paludi (Eds.), Handbook on the psychology of women (pp. 107–139). Westport, CT:Greenwood Press.

Dundas, I., Vøllestad, J., Binder, P. E., & Sivertsen, B. (2013). The fivefactor mindfulness questionnaire in Norway. Scandinavian Journalof Psychology, 54, 250–260.

Feldman, G., Hayes, A., Kumar, S., Greeson, J., & Laurenceau, J.-P.(2007). Mindfulness and emotion regulation: The developmentand initial validation of the Cognitive and Affective MindfulnessScale-Revised (CAMS-R). Journal of Psychopathology andBehavioral Assessment, 29, 177–190.

Gilbert, D., & Waltz, J. (2010). Mindfulness and health behaviors.Mindfulness, 1, 227–234.

Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (1995). Implicit social cognition:Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychological Review, 102,4–27.

Harter, S., Waters, P., Whitesell, N. R., & Kastelic, D. (1998). Level ofvoice among high school women and men: Relational context, sup-port, and gender orientation. Developmental Psychology, 34, 1–10.

Hiraoka, R., Meyer, E. C., Kimbrel, N. A., DeBeer, B. B., Gulliver, S. B.,& Morissette, S. B. (2015). Self-compassion as a prospective pre-dictor of PTSD symptom severity among trauma-exposed U.S. Iraqand Afghanistan war veterans. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 28, 1–7.

Hoffman, R. M., & Borders, L. D. (2001). Twenty-five years after theBem Sex-Role Inventory: A reassessment and new issues regardingclassification variability. Measurement and Evaluation inCounseling and Development, 34, 39–55.

Hollis-Walker, L., & Colosimo, K. (2011). Mindfulness, self-compassion,and happiness in non-meditators: A theoretical and empirical exam-ination. Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 222–227.

Holt, C. L., & Ellis, J. B. (1998). Assessing the current validity of theBem Sex-Role Inventory. Sex Roles, 39, 929–941.

Hyde, J. S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. AmericanPsychologist, 60, 581–592.

Jewkes, R., Flood, M., & Lang, J. (2015). From work with men and boysto changes of social norms and reduction of inequities in genderrelations: A conceptual shift in prevention of violence against wom-en and girls. The Lancet, 385(9977), 1580–1589.

Johnson, D. P., & Whisman, M. A. (2013). Gender differences in rumi-nation: A meta-analysis. Personality and Individual Differences,55(4), 367–374.

Kane, E. W. (2006). BNo way my boys are going to be like that!^:Parents’ responses to children’s gender nonconformity. Gender &Society, 20, 149–176.

Keith, T. Z. (2006). Multiple regression and beyond. Boston, MA: Allynand Bacon.

Lam, C. B., & McBride-Chang, C. A. (2007). Resilience in young adult-hood: The moderating influences of gender-related personality traitsand coping flexibility. Sex Roles, 56, 159–172.

Levant, R. F. (2011). Research in the psychology of men and masculinityusing the gender role strain paradigm as a framework. AmericanPsychologist, 66, 765–776.

Levant, R. F., & Pollack, W. (Eds.). (1995). A new psychology of men.New York: Basic Books.

Mindfulness

Page 16: Gender Differences in Self-Compassion: Examining the Role ...€¦ · between self-compassion and depression, anxiety, and stress in 20 studies (MacBeth and Gumley2012). Moreover,

Lilja, J. L., Frodi-Lundgren, A., Hanse, J. J., Josefsson, T., Lundh, L. G.,Skold, C., et al. (2011). Five Facets Mindfulness Questionnaire—Reliability and factor structure: A Swedish version. CognitiveBehavior Therapy, 40, 291–303.

Lippa, L. (1985). Review of Bem sex-role inventory. In J. V. Mitchell(Ed.), The ninth mental measurements yearbook (Vol. 1, pp. 176–178). Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.

Lippa, R. (1991). Some psychometric characteristics of genderdignosticity measures: Reliability, validity, consistency across do-mains, and relationship to the Big Five. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 74, 1000–1011.

Lips, H. M. (2017). Sex and gender: An introduction (6th ed.). LongGrove, IL: Waveland Press, Inc.

MacBeth, A., & Gumley, A. (2012). Exploring compassion: A meta-analysis of the association between self-compassion and psychopa-thology. Clinical Psychology Review, 32, 545–552.

Mahalik, J. R., Locke, B., Ludlow, L., Diemer, M., Scott, R. P. J.,Gottfried, M., & Freitas, G. (2003). Development of the conformityto masculine norms inventory. Psychology of Men &Masculinity, 4,3–25.

Martin, C. L. (1990). Attitudes and expectations about children withnontraditional and traditional gender roles. Sex Roles, 22, 151–165.

Mestre, M. V., Samper, P., Frías, M. D., & Tur, A. M. (2009). Are womenmore empathetic than men? A longitudinal study in adolescence.The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 12(1), 76–83.

Moscovitch, D. A., Hofmann, S. G., & Litz, B. T. (2005). The impact ofself-construals on social anxiety: A gender-specific interaction.Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 659–672.

Neff, K. D. (2003a). The development and validation of a scale to mea-sure self-compassion. Self and Identity, 2, 223–250.

Neff, K. D. (2003b). Self-compassion: An alternative conceptualizationof a healthy attitude toward oneself. Self and Identity, 2, 85–102.

Neff, K. D., & Germer, C. K. (2013). A pilot study and randomizedcontrolled trial of the Mindful Self-Compassion Program. Journalof Clinical Psychology, 69, 28–44.

Neff, K. D., & Germer, C. K. (2018). The Mindful Self-Compassionworkbook: A proven way to accept yourself, find inner strength,and thrive. New York: Guilford Press.

Neff, K. D., & Harter, S. (2002). The role of power and authenticity inrelationship styles emphasizing autonomy, connectedness, or mutu-ality among adult couples. Journal of Social and PersonalRelationships, 19, 827–849.

Neff, K. D., & McGehee, P. (2010). Self-compassion and psychologicalresilience among adolescents and young adults. Self and Identity, 9,225–240.

Neff, K. D., Rude, S. S., & Kirkpatrick, K. (2007). An examination ofself-compassion in relation to positive psychological functioningand personality traits. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 908–916.

Neff, K. D., Pisitsungkagarn, K., & Hseih, Y. (2008). Self-compassionand self-construal in the United States, Thailand, and Taiwan.Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 39, 267–285.

Nevid, J. S., & Rathus, S. A. (2016).Psychology and the challenges of life(13th ed.). New York: Wiley.

Nolen-Hoeksema, S., Larson, J., & Grayson, C. (1999). Explaining thegender difference in depressive symptoms. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 77, 1061–1072.

O’Neil, J. (2008). Summarizing 25 years of research onmen’s gender roleconflict using the Gender Role Conflict Scale: New research para-digms and clinical implications. The Counseling Psychologist, 36,358–445.

O'Neil, A., Sojo, V., Fileborn, B., Scovelle, A. J., & Milner, A. (2018).The #MeToo movement: An opportunity in public health? TheLancet, 391(10140), 2587–2589.

Oswald, P. A. (2004). An examination of the current usefulness of theBem Sex-Role Inventory. Psychological Reports, 94(3 Pt 2), 1331–1336.

Patzak, A., Kollmayer, M., & Schober, B. (2017). Buffering impostorfeelings with kindness: The mediating role of self-compassion be-tween gender-role orientation and the impostor phenomenon.Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1289.

Pederson, E. L., & Vogel, D. L. (2007). Men’s gender role conflict andtheir willingness to seek counseling: A mediation model. Journal ofCounseling Psychology, 54, 373–384.

Pedhazur, E. J., & Tetenbaum, T. J. (1979). Bem Sex Role Inventory: Atheoretical and methodological critique. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 37, 996–1016.

Pepping, C. A., Davis, P. J., O'Donovan, A., & Pal, J. (2015). Individualdifferences in self-compassion: The role of attachment and experi-ences of parenting in childhood. Self and Identity, 14, 104–117.

Prakash, J., Kotwal, A. S., Ryali, V., Srivastava, K., Bhat, P. S., &Shashikumar, R. (2010). Does androgyny have psychoprotectiveattributes? A cross-sectional community-based study. IndustrialPsychiatry Journal, 19, 119–124.

Price, E. C., Gregg, J. J., Smith, M. D., & Fiske, A. (2018). Masculinetraits and depressive symptoms in older and younger men and wom-en. American Journal of Men’s Health, 12, 19–29.

Priess, H. A., Lindberg, S. M., & Hyde, J. S. (2009). Adolescent gender-role identity and mental health: Gender intensification revisited.Child Development, 80(5), 1531–1544.

Prince, V. (2005). Sex vs. gender. International Journal ofTransgenderism, 8, 29–32.

Raffaelli, M., & Ontai, L. L. (2004). Gender socialization in Latino/afamilies: Results from two retrospective studies. Sex Roles, 50,287–299.

Rath, S., & Mishra, A. (2013). Self-efficacy of androgynous and sex-typed employed and unemployed women. Journal of SocialSciences, 2(3), 139–145.

Reilly, E. D., Rochlen, A. B., & Awad, G. H. (2014). Men’s self-compassion and self-esteem: The moderating roles of shame andmasculine norm adherence. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 15,22–28.

Richards, C., Bouman, W. P., Seal, L., Barker, M.-J., Nieder, T. O., &T’Sjoen, G. (2016). Non-binary or genderqueer genders.International Review of Psychiatry, 28, 95–102.

Robinson, K. J., Mayer, S., Allen, A. B., Terry, M., Chilton, A., & Leary,M. R. (2016). Resisting self-compassion: Why are some peopleopposed to being kind to themselves? Self and Identity, 15(5),505–524.

Ruble, D. N., &Martin, C. L. (1998). Gender development. InW. Damon(series Ed.) & N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychol-ogy: Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality development (5th ed.,pp. 933–1016). New York: Wiley.

Sbarra, D. A., Smith, H. L., &Mehl,M. R. (2012).When leaving your ex,love yourself: Observational ratings of self-compassion predict thecourse of emotional recovery following marital separation.Psychological Science, 23(3), 261–269.

Schafer, J. L., & Graham, J. W. (2002). Missing data: Our view of thestate of the art. Psychological Methods, 7, 147–177.

Sirin, S. R., McCreary, D. R., & Mahalik, J. R. (2004). Differential reac-tions to men andwomen’s gender role transgressions: Perceptions ofsocial status, sexual orientation, and value dissimilarity. The Journalof Men’s Studies, 12, 119–132.

Sirois, F. M., Molnar, D. S., & Hirsch, J. K. (2015). Self-compassion,stress, and coping in the context of chronic illness. Self and Identity,14, 334–347.

Spence, J. T., & Buckner, C. E. (2000). Instrumental and expressive traits,trait stereotypes, and sexist attitudes: What do they signify?Psychology of Women Quarterly, 24, 44–62.

Mindfulness

Page 17: Gender Differences in Self-Compassion: Examining the Role ...€¦ · between self-compassion and depression, anxiety, and stress in 20 studies (MacBeth and Gumley2012). Moreover,

Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. L. (1978). Masculinity and femininity:Their psychological dimensions, correlates, and antecedents.Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

Spence, J. T., Helmreich, R. L., & Stapp, J. (1974). The PersonalAttributes Questionnaire: A measure of sex-role stereotypes andmasculinity and femininity. JSAS: Catalog of Selected Documentsin Psychology, 4, 43–44.

Sprecher, S., & Fehr, B. (2005). Compassionate love for close others andhumanity. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22(5),629–651.

Stevens, J. P. (1999). Intermediate statistics: A modern approach (2nded.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Tanaka, M., Wekerle, C., Schmuck, M. L., Paglia-Boak, A., & ResearchTeam, M. A. P. (2011). The linkages among childhood maltreat-ment, adolescent mental health, and self-compassion in child wel-fare adolescents. Child Abuse & Neglect, 35, 887–898.

Tatum, K. J. (2013). Adherence to gender roles as a predictor of compas-sion and self-compassion in women and men. Ph.D. thesis, BaylorUniversity, Waco, TX.

Taylor, J. (2015). Gender orientation and the cost of caring for others.Society and Mental Health, 5, 49–65.

Thornton, B., & Leo, R. (1992). Gender typing, importance of multipleroles, and mental health consequences for women. Sex Roles, 27(5),307–317.

United Nations Free & Equal (2016). U.N. Free & equal fact sheet:Intersex. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights(OHCHR). Retrieved from https://unfe.org/system/unfe-65-Intersex_Factsheet_ENGLISH.pdf

Van der Graaff, J., Branje, S., De Wied, M., Hawk, S., Van Lier, P., &Meeus, W. (2014). Perspective taking and empathic concern in ad-olescence: Gender differences in developmental changes.Developmental Psychology, 50(3), 881.

Wei, M., Liao, K., Ku, T., & Shaffer, P. A. (2011). Attachment, self-compassion, empathy, and subjective well-being among college stu-dents and community adults. Journal of Personality, 79, 191–221.

van Well, S., Kolk, A. M., & Oci, N. Y. L. (2007). Direct and indirectassessment of gender role identification. Sex Roles, 56, 617–628.

Whitley, B. E. (1983). Sex role orientation and self-esteem: A criticalmeta-analytic review. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 44, 765–778.

Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2009). Gender identity. In M. R. Leary & R.H. Hoyle (Eds.), Handbook of individual differences in socialbehavior (pp. 109–128). New York: Guilford Press.

Yarnell, L. M., Stafford, R., Neff, K. D., Reilly, E., Knox, M. C., &Mullarkey, M. (2015). Meta-analysis of gender differences in self-compassion. Self and Identity, 14, 499–520.

Zessin, U., Dickhauser, O., & Garbade, S. (2015). The relationship be-tween self-compassion and well-being: A meta-analysis. AppliedPsychology: Health and Well-Being, 7, 340–364.

Mindfulness